View Debate

Life is inherently meaningless. We're mere specks on a floating rock in an indifferent universe. People create meaning to cope with their existential dread, but face it: any meaning you think life has is just a comforting lie. When you die, it’s over. No grand purpose, no cosmic significance. It’s delusional to think otherwise. You live, you die, end of story. Any so-called "meaning" is just an illusion to mask the painful reality. Let's not sugarcoat it. Wake up and see the truth for what it is.

If life is inherently meaningless than why even bother debating me, you just proved my point exactly, that life has meaning and that if you are debating and even taking the time to write that argument, life has meaning to you so it disproves your whole claim.

Debating you doesn’t imply life has inherent meaning. It’s merely an activity to pass time while we're here. Engaging in actions doesn’t necessitate intrinsic purpose; it's about filling the void while we exist. Just because people find ways to occupy themselves doesn't mean there's a grand meaning to it all. I'm debating because it's a predetermined format—nothing more. Comprehend this: actions don’t equate to inherent meaning, they're just responses to an empty existence.

If there was no grand meaning than why would I argue with you on this topic, the fact that discourse exists just proves that life has meaning whether it is to prove your point on a site to debate or to become president.

The participant in favor (CoolArchipelago669) argues that life lacks inherent meaning and that any meaning is an illusion created by humans to cope with their existence, relying primarily on pathos and logos but lacking substantial evidence. The participant against (ChicHurricane711) counters by suggesting that discourse and debating itself indicate that life has meaning, addressing logical inconsistencies in their opponent's arguments but also lacking substantial evidence. Both participants lean heavily on pathos without strong ethos or logos support.